Some Pet Owners Think So
A taxpayer from Bayport, Long Island sent a letter to Congress pleading his/her case for treating the two family pooches as children. As such, and because they can't afford to have children, they make the mental leap that the dogs should be declared their dependents and therefore should be tax deductible.Here is an excerpt from their letter:
"Once again, it's tax time and as always, we owe money to the state and federal governments because I am married with no children. My husband & I have no children because we cannot afford to have children living on Long Island. But we do have 2 dogs - 2 very expensive dogs - and they are our kids. If I should mistreat, neglect, abuse or deprive my dog of health care in any way, I can be arrested for animal cruelty. But yet, here we are, spending thousands and thousands of dollars each year giving my dogs the best care in emergency and non-emergency situations, what do we receive? My proposal is to be able to declare my dogs as dependents on my taxes at the end of the year.
"With the request of proper documentation from pet owners, I firmly believe we should propose a new law to be able to claim our dogs as dependents, whether it be for routine exams, medicines and/or emergency care. Anything would be of great assistance to pet owners."
I think they shoot themselves in their paws over the bolded statements above. "Can't afford to have children", but they spend thousands each year on the canines, giving them the best care possible? Excuse me? If it's too expensive to live on Long Island, how can their neighbors have children? How can they afford TWO expensive dogs?
The Long Island Lawyers must be literally chomping on their muzzles while waiting for this crucial legislative proposal to be enacted. Once the canine species assume privileged status as legal dependents, the activists for each animal species will demand equal rights. What about the very expensive tropical fish that require undue attention and constant care?
Comments
Jamie makes a good point. But then again, wouldn't people have a bunch of kids to get the tax break? Do gerbils and fish count as deductible pets, or just chimps and horses?
While it is understandable that in some cases pet expenses should not be tax deductable, such as feeding and grooming expenses, as these are in fact "privilage" based expenses, but the case for a tax break should hold up for emergency medical attention toward pets. These can be considered necessary expenses due to the fact that in many states, even if an animal is mortally injured in an accident or fire, only a police officer is legally able to fire the weapon to put that suffering animal out of its misery. If the owners cannot afford the surgery to save the animal, or at least put it down humanely, there has to be some recourse to help that animal. As with anything in life, there can be no black or white in this issue. The shades of grey make this issue impossible to decide quickly. It is something to think about, though, given as messed up as our current tax system is right now.
Pets are great -- but you show me somewhere this law passes, and I'll show you a place where stray dogs are adopted and then neglected or even abused just to take advantage of this tax break. And where would it stop? Cats are nice, too. So are hamsters. Hey, my rat's pregnant -- that's another eight deductions! And you can get rid of a dog if you have to. If your kid causes problems, he's still yours, all yours. You have to pay for your kid's college. The dog won't get a license, or go through teen rebellion, or wear $1200 worth of diapers during his first two years of life. I could go on -- but I won't.
Marie R.
(Guest)
(Guest)
04/26/2007
And, what are children? They are privileges too, and I still have to pay for their health, maintenance and support as I do my dog. A dog is part of a family, whoever has one can tell you. Pets give us "tax deductible humans" unconditional love and were a major part in the rehabilitation of many grief stricken families at the Pier in NYC during the 9/11 tragedy. There were pets that put smiles on people's faces even though they went through a horrible loss. In addition, there are many pets who are also giving the elderly in nursing homes companionship when others do not have the "privilege" to do so...so I ask you, instead of pets lingering in streets getting hit by cars, starving, being abused or ending up as road-kill because they don't have a "right", why don't we give those who do have pets the ability to ensure a better existence for the pets who care "unconditionally" towards those who require the much needed deduction?
I don't think pets are a privelege or right, but a duty. We have a responsibility to take care of animals, especially since its our fault as humans that they've overpopulated. Those who are responsible pet owners and vaccinate their pets, spay them, keep them from running off to breed in the streets, should indeed get back some of that $ they spent doing all of America a favor.
Yes, for quite a few people that I know they should be. I work with people who have no children, but they have pets and let me tell you by golly, if one of those starving children over in, well anywhere that they are starving could climb through the window and get rid of the pet and sleep in there place they would be a well cared for child. No doubt
No, pets shouldn't be tax deductble. They are a privelage not a right.
Comments 1 - 7 (of 7)
|
|